BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Not quite correct. Due process can be “procedural” such as getting a right to a hearing and maybe discovery and time constraints and things of that nature. It is distinguished from substantive due process.I don't get why she thinks technology matters with respect to pornography and pedophilia? What's the connection with the crime of pedophilia and whether the perp uses pornography? A crime has been committed and there is a punishment established which was a minimum of 5 years. Why does a judge get to change the law because the perp had more access to child porn? What does one have to do with the other? See, this problem that libs have with the Constitution came out with John Cornyn's questioning when she threw in the word "substantive" due process. Substantive does not exist in the constitution. It's a word libs throw in so they could legislate from the bench. He was questioning about same-sex marriage but this same word is being used for her reasoning about pedophiles. The law (government) was too harsh with respect to the pedophile because he couldn't control his brain because of all the pornography available these days on the internet. Complete Bullcrap! But, this is the liberal mind today.
Substantive due process
Primary tabs
Substantive due process is the notion that due process not only protects certain legal procedures, but also protects certain rights unrelated to procedure.
Many legal scholars argue that the words “due process” suggest a concern with procedure rather than substance. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of this theory's most well-noted supporters, argued this point when he wrote that "the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness"--understand the Due Process Clause. However, others believe that the Due Process Clause does include protections of substantive due process--such as Justice Stephen J. Field, who, in a dissenting opinion to the Slaughterhouse Cases wrote that "the Due Process Clause protected individuals from state legislation that infringed upon their “privileges and immunities” under the federal Constitution. Field’s dissenting opinion is often seen as an important step toward the modern doctrine of substantive due process, a theory that the Court has developed to defend rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution."
— excerpt from Substantive due process